I received this question from a long-time Cubist and began to write a short answer. When I stopped writing it was already dark, Mrs. Red Square was sleeping, and I was looking at a pretty long rant that I thought deserved to be shared with the kollektive. Perhaps you can post your short answers as well.

Greetings Red Square,

A good friend of mine and I were discussing something earlier today and we reached an impasse. He listened to a speaker who said that a laissez-faire capitalist system can't function as a closed cycle because it can't truly generate additional wealth. The speaker used this scenario.

Imagine a closed-cycle economy, where no outside forces (e.g. the government or a foreign nation) have any influence. You are an entrepreneur and your company spends $1 billion in material and labor to make a specific product. Of course, you won't sell it just to break even, you expect a profit. You want to sell the resulting product for $1.1 billion. The crux of the speaker's argument is since the asking price is greater than the cost of the production price, this additional 100 million has to be gotten from somewhere. In a closed-cycle economy that means others would have to purchase this product at a loss.

The speaker then goes on to talk about printing money, but that can only be done by the government, which contradicts his own scenario. He then claims that the laissez-faire capitalist system would have to make up that deficit through non-capitalist means, such as uncompensated labor and stealing from other nations.

Can you provide any insight on this matter? Maybe there's something we both missed.

Commissar Elliott

Dear Elliott.

I'm not an economist, but it seems right off the bat that your speaker (let's call him Karl) is toying with a false premise.

Karl's hypothetical is absurd for the following reasons:

1. It isn't much different from testing the sustainability of humanity by isolating a group of people and requiring them to eat their own waste and drink their own urine. They won't last long because their waste won't contain enough nutrients to keep them alive. And if some of them survive after a month, that means they've been stealing or eating human flesh. Practical conclusion: humanity is unsustainable and therefore it is doomed. Moral conclusion: humanity is evil and isn't worth saving.

This conclusion is just as absurd as the Marxist conclusion that capitalism is doomed because it isn't sustainable. Both theories discount the natural cycle of life on earth.

2. This hypothetical is premised on a static view of the economy, whereas laissez-faire capitalism is dynamic and any attempts to render it static will stifle and kill it. Presenting laissez-faire capitalism in a static closed-cycle situation is the same as saying: imagine a human who is not breathing, not moving, and is of room temperature. How much work can this human do? None. Conclusion: humans are useless.

But the costs in the free markets are never carved in stone; they are spontaneously balanced by supply-and-demand mechanisms. Should there be a disruption, the same mechanisms will readjust the costs and establish a new balance.

Laissez-faire capitalism is about free choices. A business that doesn't bring profit has a choice to close its doors. The workers have a choice to save their jobs by agreeing to pay cuts. The suppliers have a choice of lowering their prices to keep this customer buying their products. And so on, until the free markets readjust to the new situation and reach a balance with lower prices matching a lowered standard of living. But since the free market systems have a natural tendency to grow, the prices, the salaries, and the standard of living will eventually rebound. That's until the next genius comes along and messes with the system to prove that capitalism is unworkable.

3. Laissez-faire is antithetical to closed cycles. Karl may as well have asked, what if the polar ice caps were on the equator. Then they would no longer be ice caps - just like anything in a closed cycle would no longer be laissez-faire capitalism.

Just how "closed" is that closed cycle? All the people involved must live somewhere, so there has to be a housing industry. They must eat, so there has to be agriculture, food processing, and restaurants. They must have clothes, so there has to be clothing manufacturers. People must be able to buy all the above, so there have to be retail stores. People also need entertainment, healthcare, and education for their children. All these businesses live off and nourish each other, in the process generating wealth for their owners and employees through the work of their minds and their hands. So any artificially created closed cycle will soon stop being closed, with the market forces remaking a static situation into a dynamic one, with enough circulated wealth to support growing profits.

4. Karl brings zero-sum rules to a non-zero sum game. A zero-sum game precludes growth, dealing with ways to distribute a limited, static supply of resources: the more one takes, the less is left for the others. Socialism is such a zero-sum game, and so socialists tend to think in zero-sum terms.

In contrast, capitalism generates wealth and abundance of products, which makes it a non-zero-sum game: one can have more things without taking them away from others. Trying to play this game by different rules is like bringing a baseball bat to a poker table.

5. Karl seems to be promoting the Marxist concept of "surplus value," which equals the new value created by workers in excess of their own labor-cost, and then greedily appropriated by capitalist "exploiters" as profit when products are sold. Karl's hypothetical implies that things in a closed cycle would still work if the capitalists weren't trying to steal the "surplus value" from the workers. Such a view treats businesses as a given natural resource, as opposed to the product of human efforts created explicitly to bring profits.

Profit is the main motivator for businessmen to take risks; it is also their resource to innovate, research, and expand, which creates new and better jobs for others. If no profit can be made, why build new businesses? One would rather have a risk-free life as an employee at an existing business, expecting a guaranteed paycheck every two weeks.

Marxism concept of "surplus value" being stolen from workers as capitalist profits leads to the concept of "exploitation" of man by man - an injustice that can only be remedied by a socialist revolution, a workers' dictatorship, and elimination of private property of the means of production.

This fallacy has already caused a catastrophic loss of life and destruction of property in the name of "economic justice" around the world. And yet we still call its proponents "well-meaning idealists," allowing them to take over the nation's schools and teach our children.

The next time one of them questions the workings of capitalism, we should go straight to the basics and ask them if they believe it is more just and fair to murder capitalists than to allow them to make a profit.

And then some! I knew coming to you was the smart move. Thank you so much comrade Red Square!

Red Square

This hypothetical is premised on a static view of the economy, whereas laissez-faire capitalism is dynamic and any attempts to render it static will stifle and kill it.

When we were talking, I came close to this idea and conclusion, but I couldn't name it, let alone find a good way of even describing it.

Red Square

The next time one of them questions the workings of capitalism, we should go straight to the basics and ask them if they believe it is more just and fair to murder capitalists than to allow them to make a profit.

It is a good thing that The Children™ no longer study any history but that which has been carefully screened and edited by wise progressives to eliminate hate speech and false consciousness. Otherwise, The Children™ might think that kapitalist societies always turn out to provide the highest standard of living for those who participate in said societies, including The Poor,™ who live better than the average participant in enlightened socialist societies.

Indeed, Amerikkka, that chief of kapitalist societies, was once known as the Land of Opportunity -- before such hate speech was excised from The Narrative -- because so many of the poor often ceased to be poor. Thank Lenin, we have gradually eliminated such supposed "opportunities" through the loving care administered to The Poor by government agencies and community organizers.

That’s why the capitalists have to subjagate the world with colonial imperialism. Because there is no wealth creation but only a collective of labor value that they steal and hoard like bandits. The capitalists must eventually move on to new markets via colonial exploitation of the world thus staving off the inevitable socialist revolution that would be brought about by economic collapse.

And that’s why the rest of the world hates America. They think we're all Marxist-Leninists.

It might be that Komrade Director doesn't hold a Ph.D. in economics - obviously, in this case, an advantage, doesn't thwart him to see things as they are. I would laugh my ass off if Karl bears a Ph.D. - in economics, at that.

There has "always" been trees - but not "always" ships made of wood.There has "always" been air - but only since about 100 years man moves in air.(btw, oxygen in air resulted (dynamics!) from the greatest life extinction event in Earth's history.)And so on...

Comrades!Nationalization/Government direction didn't work well in UK-SSR (Great Britain) after Great Patriotic War. Leader in aviation tech, now ??. Sell engines to Comrade Stalin, Fraternal Socialist Ally! He copies them and pays you nothing! Didn't stop them though, SJW's always double down. Government decided which company built commercial planes, which war planes etc. Today? Rolls-Royce, saved from bankruptcy, only real worldwide player in aviation left. US well on the way to same I'm afraid.

It is obvious that the Speaker has never done a day's real work in his life. Ergo, he must be a party member. So we should treat his word as Gospel.

Nevertheless, if the Current Gospel changes, we should keep in mind that no economic system can function as a "closed cycle" inasmuch as every economic system by definition includes production (value entering the system or being created) and consumption (value leaving the system or being destroyed). So a "closed cycle" economic system is a contradiction in terms. So all economic systems are vulnerable to this clever critique. Well done, Commisar!

This fallacy has already caused a catastrophic loss of life and destruction of property in the name of "economic justice" around the world. And yet we still call its proponents "well-meaning idealists," allowing them to take over the nation's schools and teach our children. Ah yes, "The Comprachicos", Comrades! All must support the subjugation of your children by public school education at the hands of The Comprachicos! Shame on the mean kapitalist pigs for keeping their children from us... whenever they do... which is seldom.

The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology. ~ Ayn Rand

Ex-president Obama declares Irma "Hurricane of Peace," urges not to jump to conclusions and succumb to stormophobia

CNN: Trump reverses Obama's executive order banning hurricanes

ISIS claims responsibility for a total solar eclipse over the lands of American crusaders and nonbelievers

When asked if they could point to North Korea on a map many college students didn't know what a map was

CNN: We must bring America into the 21st century by replacing the 18th century Constitution with 19th century poetry

Pelosi: 'We have to impeach the president in order to find out what we impeached him for'

BREAKING: As of Saturday July 8, 2017, all of Earth's ecosystems have shut down as per Prince Charles's super scientific pronouncement made 96 months ago. Everything is dead. All is lost. Life on Earth is no more.

DNC to pick new election slogan out of four finalists: 'Give us more government or everyone dies,' 'Vote for Democrats or everyone dies,' 'Impeach Trump or everyone dies,' 'Stop the fearmongering or everyone dies'

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power" is humanity's last chance to save the Earth before it ends five years ago

Experts: The more we embrace diversity the more everything is the same

Study: Many non-voters still undecided on how they're not going to vote

The Evolution of Dissent: on November 8th the nation is to decide whether dissent will stop being racist and become sexist - or it will once again be patriotic as it was for 8 years under George W. Bush

Venezuela solves starvation problem by making it mandatory to buy food

China launches cube-shaped space object with a message to aliens: "The inhabitants of Earth will steal your intellectual property, copy it, manufacture it in sweatshops with slave labor, and sell it back to you at ridiculously low prices"

Progressive scientists: Truth is a variable deduced by subtracting 'what is' from 'what ought to be'

Experts agree: Hillary Clinton best candidate to lessen percentage of Americans in top 1%

America's attempts at peace talks with the White House continue to be met with lies, stalling tactics, and bad faith

Starbucks new policy to talk race with customers prompts new hashtag #DontHoldUpTheLine

Hillary: DELETE is the new RESET

Charlie Hebdo receives Islamophobe 2015 award; the cartoonists could not be reached for comment due to their inexplicable, illogical deaths

Russia sends 'reset' button back to Hillary: 'You need it now more than we do'

Barack Obama finds out from CNN that Hillary Clinton spent four years being his Secretary of State

President Obama honors Leonard Nimoy by taking selfie in front of Starship Enterprise